5 ms·

Facebook, Twitter and the rest shouldn't act like arbiters of truth. I think this is just plain wrong and a slippery slope for the entire industry.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used to incite violence or insurrection. That’s their choice. You’re welcome to go to the cesspool that is Parler if you want to make violent threats.
- tortasaur 6y ago
  The parent comment didn't say they couldn't, it said they shouldn't.
- textech 6y ago
  not just "don't have to" but I'd say that they have a responsibility to make sure that their platforms aren't used to incite violence against anyone but there are better ways to handle an outgoing but still an elected President and it's not clear if that's what really happened. I thought people had the right to protest in this country? If an elected President of the country is acting deranged then that's the responsibility of congress to do something about and not of glorified CRUD app creators.
- Thuggery 6y ago
  >They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used This is a major flaw in modern legal tradition and social morality. Society will continue to suffer from it. People need to stop pretending Internet media is an optional luxury. It's now integral to the public's extended mind and method of social/political discourse. No one is writing letters to the editor anymore, or going to salons, or likely talking heavy politics with their neighbors.
iNic 6y ago
I'm actually curious: where would this be a slippery slope to, in your opinion? I understand that these platforms have a lot of influence, and I wouldn't like it if they censored whatever I believe. However, I think that new social media platforms are created fast enough that one can always find a place to discuss whatever they would want to discuss. (Both for better or for worse)
- textech 6y ago
  Network effect is pretty strong and although these platforms can easily be replicated, it's just not easy to get masses to adopt a new platform. I'm afraid that just like the traditional news media this could lead to a society where these companies could decide what people get to see and read.
esoterica 6y ago
They own the servers and have the right to act like arbiters of truth on their own private property.
zmmmmm 6y ago
It doesn't appear to me that their rationale for this is based on a judgement about truthfulness of anything. It is purely based on (in their words): > we judged that their effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence

cycrutchfield 6y ago

They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used to incite violence or insurrection. That’s their choice. You’re welcome to go to the cesspool that is Parler if you want to make violent threats.

tortasaur 6y ago
The parent comment didn't say they couldn't, it said they shouldn't.
textech 6y ago
not just "don't have to" but I'd say that they have a responsibility to make sure that their platforms aren't used to incite violence against anyone but there are better ways to handle an outgoing but still an elected President and it's not clear if that's what really happened. I thought people had the right to protest in this country? If an elected President of the country is acting deranged then that's the responsibility of congress to do something about and not of glorified CRUD app creators.
Thuggery 6y ago
>They don’t have to allow their platforms to be used This is a major flaw in modern legal tradition and social morality. Society will continue to suffer from it. People need to stop pretending Internet media is an optional luxury. It's now integral to the public's extended mind and method of social/political discourse. No one is writing letters to the editor anymore, or going to salons, or likely talking heavy politics with their neighbors.

iNic 6y ago

I'm actually curious: where would this be a slippery slope to, in your opinion? I understand that these platforms have a lot of influence, and I wouldn't like it if they censored whatever I believe. However, I think that new social media platforms are created fast enough that one can always find a place to discuss whatever they would want to discuss. (Both for better or for worse)

textech 6y ago
Network effect is pretty strong and although these platforms can easily be replicated, it's just not easy to get masses to adopt a new platform. I'm afraid that just like the traditional news media this could lead to a society where these companies could decide what people get to see and read.

esoterica 6y ago

They own the servers and have the right to act like arbiters of truth on their own private property.

zmmmmm 6y ago

It doesn't appear to me that their rationale for this is based on a judgement about truthfulness of anything. It is purely based on (in their words): > we judged that their effect -- and likely their intent -- would be to provoke further violence